Choctaw vs Chinese Community Comparison

COMPARE

Choctaw
Race
Ancestry
AfghanAfricanAlaska NativeAlaskan AthabascanAlbanianAleutAlsatianAmericanApacheArabArapahoArgentineanArmenianAssyrian/Chaldean/SyriacAustralianAustrianBahamianBangladeshiBarbadianBasqueBelgianBelizeanBermudanBhutaneseBlackfeetBolivianBrazilianBritishBritish West IndianBulgarianBurmeseCajunCambodianCanadianCape VerdeanCarpatho RusynCelticCentral AmericanCentral American IndianCherokeeCheyenneChickasawChileanChippewaChoctawColombianColvilleComancheCosta RicanCreeCreekCroatianCubanCypriotCzechCzechoslovakianDanishDelawareDominicanDutchDutch West IndianEastern EuropeanEcuadorianEgyptianEnglishEstonianEthiopianEuropeanFijianFilipinoFinnishFrenchFrench American IndianFrench CanadianGermanGerman RussianGhanaianGreekGuamanian/ChamorroGuatemalanGuyaneseHaitianHmongHonduranHungarianIcelanderIndian (Asian)IndonesianInupiatIranianIraqiIrishIroquoisIsraeliItalianJamaicanJapaneseJordanianKenyanKiowaKoreanLaotianLatvianLebaneseLiberianLithuanianLuxembourgerMacedonianMalaysianMalteseMarshalleseMenomineeMexicanMexican American IndianMongolianMoroccanNative HawaiianNavajoNepaleseNew ZealanderNicaraguanNigerianNorthern EuropeanNorwegianOkinawanOsageOttawaPaiutePakistaniPalestinianPanamanianParaguayanPennsylvania GermanPeruvianPimaPolishPortuguesePotawatomiPuebloPuerto RicanPuget Sound SalishRomanianRussianSalvadoranSamoanScandinavianScotch-IrishScottishSeminoleSenegaleseSerbianShoshoneSierra LeoneanSiouxSlavicSlovakSloveneSomaliSouth AfricanSouth AmericanSouth American IndianSoviet UnionSpaniardSpanishSpanish AmericanSpanish American IndianSri LankanSubsaharan AfricanSudaneseSwedishSwissSyrianTaiwaneseThaiTlingit-HaidaTohono O'OdhamTonganTrinidadian and TobagonianTurkishU.S. Virgin IslanderUgandanUkrainianUruguayanVenezuelanVietnameseWelshWest IndianYakamaYaquiYugoslavianYumanYup'ikZimbabwean
Immigration
NonimmigrantsImmigrantsAfghanistanAfricaAlbaniaArgentinaArmeniaAsiaAustraliaAustriaBahamasBangladeshBarbadosBelarusBelgiumBelizeBoliviaBosnia and HerzegovinaBrazilBulgariaBurma/MyanmarCambodiaCameroonCanadaCaribbeanCentral AmericaChileChinaColombiaCongoCosta RicaCroatiaCubaCzechoslovakiaDenmarkDominicaDominican RepublicEastern AfricaEastern AsiaEastern EuropeEcuadorEgyptEl SalvadorEnglandEritreaEthiopiaEuropeFijiFranceGermanyGhanaGreeceGrenadaGuatemalaGuyanaHaitiHondurasHong KongHungaryIndiaIndonesiaIranIraqIrelandIsraelItalyJamaicaJapanJordanKazakhstanKenyaKoreaKuwaitLaosLatin AmericaLatviaLebanonLiberiaLithuaniaMalaysiaMexicoMicronesiaMiddle AfricaMoldovaMoroccoNepalNetherlandsNicaraguaNigeriaNorth AmericaNorth MacedoniaNorthern AfricaNorthern EuropeNorwayOceaniaPakistanPanamaPeruPhilippinesPolandPortugalRomaniaRussiaSaudi ArabiaScotlandSenegalSerbiaSierra LeoneSingaporeSomaliaSouth AfricaSouth AmericaSouth Central AsiaSouth Eastern AsiaSouthern EuropeSpainSri LankaSt. Vincent and the GrenadinesSudanSwedenSwitzerlandSyriaTaiwanThailandTrinidad and TobagoTurkeyUgandaUkraineUruguayUzbekistanVenezuelaVietnamWest IndiesWestern AfricaWestern AsiaWestern EuropeYemenZaireZimbabweAzores
Chinese
Race
Ancestry
AfghanAfricanAlaska NativeAlaskan AthabascanAlbanianAleutAlsatianAmericanApacheArabArapahoArgentineanArmenianAssyrian/Chaldean/SyriacAustralianAustrianBahamianBangladeshiBarbadianBasqueBelgianBelizeanBermudanBhutaneseBlackfeetBolivianBrazilianBritishBritish West IndianBulgarianBurmeseCajunCambodianCanadianCape VerdeanCarpatho RusynCelticCentral AmericanCentral American IndianCherokeeCheyenneChickasawChileanChineseChippewaColombianColvilleComancheCosta RicanCreeCreekCroatianCrowCubanCypriotCzechCzechoslovakianDanishDelawareDominicanDutchDutch West IndianEastern EuropeanEcuadorianEgyptianEnglishEstonianEthiopianEuropeanFijianFilipinoFinnishFrenchFrench American IndianFrench CanadianGermanGerman RussianGhanaianGreekGuamanian/ChamorroGuatemalanGuyaneseHaitianHmongHonduranHopiHoumaHungarianIcelanderIndian (Asian)IndonesianInupiatIranianIraqiIrishIroquoisIsraeliItalianJamaicanJapaneseJordanianKenyanKiowaKoreanLaotianLatvianLebaneseLiberianLithuanianLumbeeLuxembourgerMacedonianMalaysianMalteseMarshalleseMenomineeMexicanMexican American IndianMongolianMoroccanNative HawaiianNavajoNepaleseNew ZealanderNicaraguanNigerianNorthern EuropeanNorwegianOkinawanOsageOttawaPaiutePakistaniPalestinianPanamanianParaguayanPennsylvania GermanPeruvianPimaPolishPortuguesePotawatomiPuebloPuerto RicanPuget Sound SalishRomanianRussianSalvadoranSamoanScandinavianScotch-IrishScottishSeminoleSenegaleseSerbianShoshoneSierra LeoneanSiouxSlavicSlovakSloveneSomaliSouth AfricanSouth AmericanSouth American IndianSoviet UnionSpaniardSpanishSpanish AmericanSpanish American IndianSri LankanSubsaharan AfricanSudaneseSwedishSwissSyrianTaiwaneseThaiTlingit-HaidaTohono O'OdhamTonganTrinidadian and TobagonianTsimshianTurkishU.S. Virgin IslanderUgandanUkrainianUruguayanUteVenezuelanVietnameseWelshWest IndianYakamaYaquiYugoslavianYumanYup'ikZimbabwean
Immigration
NonimmigrantsImmigrantsAfghanistanAfricaAlbaniaArgentinaArmeniaAsiaAustraliaAustriaBahamasBangladeshBarbadosBelarusBelgiumBelizeBoliviaBosnia and HerzegovinaBrazilBulgariaBurma/MyanmarCabo VerdeCambodiaCameroonCanadaCaribbeanCentral AmericaChileChinaColombiaCongoCosta RicaCroatiaCubaCzechoslovakiaDenmarkDominicaDominican RepublicEastern AfricaEastern AsiaEastern EuropeEcuadorEgyptEl SalvadorEnglandEritreaEthiopiaEuropeFijiFranceGermanyGhanaGreeceGrenadaGuatemalaGuyanaHaitiHondurasHong KongHungaryIndiaIndonesiaIranIraqIrelandIsraelItalyJamaicaJapanJordanKazakhstanKenyaKoreaKuwaitLaosLatin AmericaLatviaLebanonLiberiaLithuaniaMalaysiaMexicoMicronesiaMiddle AfricaMoldovaMoroccoNepalNetherlandsNicaraguaNigeriaNorth AmericaNorth MacedoniaNorthern AfricaNorthern EuropeNorwayOceaniaPakistanPanamaPeruPhilippinesPolandPortugalRomaniaRussiaSaudi ArabiaScotlandSenegalSerbiaSierra LeoneSingaporeSomaliaSouth AfricaSouth AmericaSouth Central AsiaSouth Eastern AsiaSouthern EuropeSpainSri LankaSt. Vincent and the GrenadinesSudanSwedenSwitzerlandSyriaTaiwanThailandTrinidad and TobagoTurkeyUgandaUkraineUruguayUzbekistanVenezuelaVietnamWest IndiesWestern AfricaWestern AsiaWestern EuropeYemenZaireZimbabweAzores
Social Comparison
Social Comparison
Income
Poverty
Unemployment
Labor Participation
Family Structure
Vehicle Availability
Education Level
Disability

Social Comparison

Choctaw

Chinese

Fair
Exceptional
2,496
SOCIAL INDEX
22.5/ 100
SOCIAL RATING
254th/ 347
SOCIAL RANK
9,296
SOCIAL INDEX
90.4/ 100
SOCIAL RATING
23rd/ 347
SOCIAL RANK

Chinese Integration in Choctaw Communities

The statistical analysis conducted on geographies consisting of 56,816,062 people shows a strong positive correlation between the proportion of Chinese within Choctaw communities in the United States with a correlation coefficient (R) of 0.750. On average, for every 1% (one percent) increase in Choctaw within a typical geography, there is an increase of 0.762% in Chinese. To illustrate, in a geography comprising of 100,000 individuals, a rise of 1,000 Choctaw corresponds to an increase of 762.0 Chinese.
Choctaw Integration in Chinese Communities

Choctaw vs Chinese Income

When considering income, the most significant differences between Choctaw and Chinese communities in the United States are seen in householder income over 65 years ($53,060 compared to $77,465, a difference of 46.0%), householder income ages 45 - 64 years ($82,287 compared to $116,156, a difference of 41.2%), and median household income ($69,947 compared to $98,496, a difference of 40.8%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of wage/income gap (28.1% compared to 25.9%, a difference of 8.6%), median male earnings ($47,729 compared to $56,872, a difference of 19.2%), and median earnings ($40,270 compared to $48,836, a difference of 21.3%).
Choctaw vs Chinese Income
Income MetricChoctawChinese
Per Capita Income
Tragic
$35,999
Exceptional
$46,098
Median Family Income
Tragic
$84,835
Exceptional
$116,188
Median Household Income
Tragic
$69,947
Exceptional
$98,496
Median Earnings
Tragic
$40,270
Exceptional
$48,836
Median Male Earnings
Tragic
$47,729
Exceptional
$56,872
Median Female Earnings
Tragic
$33,775
Exceptional
$41,461
Householder Age | Under 25 years
Tragic
$45,450
Exceptional
$58,162
Householder Age | 25 - 44 years
Tragic
$78,168
Exceptional
$104,264
Householder Age | 45 - 64 years
Tragic
$82,287
Exceptional
$116,156
Householder Age | Over 65 years
Tragic
$53,060
Exceptional
$77,465
Wage/Income Gap
Tragic
28.1%
Average
25.9%

Choctaw vs Chinese Poverty

When considering poverty, the most significant differences between Choctaw and Chinese communities in the United States are seen in child poverty under the age of 5 (23.5% compared to 13.1%, a difference of 79.8%), child poverty among boys under 16 (21.3% compared to 11.9%, a difference of 79.8%), and family poverty (11.6% compared to 6.5%, a difference of 78.7%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of single father poverty (20.7% compared to 15.4%, a difference of 34.6%), seniors poverty over the age of 65 (11.4% compared to 8.3%, a difference of 36.3%), and seniors poverty over the age of 75 (12.5% compared to 9.1%, a difference of 38.2%).
Choctaw vs Chinese Poverty
Poverty MetricChoctawChinese
Poverty
Tragic
15.6%
Exceptional
9.5%
Families
Tragic
11.6%
Exceptional
6.5%
Males
Tragic
14.4%
Exceptional
8.7%
Females
Tragic
16.8%
Exceptional
10.4%
Females 18 to 24 years
Tragic
24.3%
Exceptional
16.2%
Females 25 to 34 years
Tragic
18.1%
Exceptional
11.0%
Children Under 5 years
Tragic
23.5%
Exceptional
13.1%
Children Under 16 years
Tragic
21.0%
Exceptional
11.9%
Boys Under 16 years
Tragic
21.3%
Exceptional
11.9%
Girls Under 16 years
Tragic
21.1%
Exceptional
12.3%
Single Males
Tragic
17.0%
Exceptional
11.0%
Single Females
Tragic
27.2%
Exceptional
16.1%
Single Fathers
Tragic
20.7%
Exceptional
15.4%
Single Mothers
Tragic
36.4%
Exceptional
24.6%
Married Couples
Tragic
6.3%
Exceptional
3.6%
Seniors Over 65 years
Poor
11.4%
Exceptional
8.3%
Seniors Over 75 years
Fair
12.5%
Exceptional
9.1%
Receiving Food Stamps
Tragic
13.6%
Exceptional
9.8%

Choctaw vs Chinese Unemployment

When considering unemployment, the most significant differences between Choctaw and Chinese communities in the United States are seen in unemployment among seniors over 75 years (8.8% compared to 5.9%, a difference of 49.0%), unemployment among women with children under 6 years (9.8% compared to 6.8%, a difference of 44.0%), and unemployment among ages 30 to 34 years (6.4% compared to 5.1%, a difference of 25.9%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of unemployment among women with children ages 6 to 17 years (9.9% compared to 9.3%, a difference of 7.3%), unemployment among youth under 25 years (12.1% compared to 10.7%, a difference of 12.7%), and unemployment among ages 20 to 24 years (10.6% compared to 9.4%, a difference of 13.3%).
Choctaw vs Chinese Unemployment
Unemployment MetricChoctawChinese
Unemployment
Poor
5.4%
Exceptional
4.7%
Males
Tragic
5.6%
Exceptional
4.9%
Females
Poor
5.4%
Exceptional
4.5%
Youth < 25
Tragic
12.1%
Exceptional
10.7%
Age | 16 to 19 years
Tragic
19.0%
Exceptional
16.0%
Age | 20 to 24 years
Tragic
10.6%
Exceptional
9.4%
Age | 25 to 29 years
Tragic
7.5%
Exceptional
6.1%
Age | 30 to 34 years
Tragic
6.4%
Exceptional
5.1%
Age | 35 to 44 years
Tragic
5.3%
Exceptional
4.3%
Age | 45 to 54 years
Tragic
4.7%
Exceptional
4.0%
Age | 55 to 59 years
Tragic
5.0%
Exceptional
4.4%
Age | 60 to 64 years
Exceptional
4.8%
Exceptional
4.0%
Age | 65 to 74 years
Exceptional
5.1%
Exceptional
4.4%
Seniors > 65
Exceptional
4.9%
Exceptional
4.2%
Seniors > 75
Fair
8.8%
Exceptional
5.9%
Women w/ Children < 6
Tragic
9.8%
Exceptional
6.8%
Women w/ Children 6 to 17
Tragic
9.9%
Tragic
9.3%
Women w/ Children < 18
Tragic
5.9%
Exceptional
4.9%

Choctaw vs Chinese Labor Participation

When considering labor participation, the most significant differences between Choctaw and Chinese communities in the United States are seen in in labor force | age 45-54 (78.2% compared to 84.1%, a difference of 7.6%), in labor force | age 20-64 (75.4% compared to 80.7%, a difference of 7.0%), and in labor force | age 35-44 (80.5% compared to 85.1%, a difference of 5.6%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of in labor force | age 16-19 (38.0% compared to 38.6%, a difference of 1.6%), in labor force | age 20-24 (74.7% compared to 77.3%, a difference of 3.4%), and in labor force | age 25-29 (81.0% compared to 84.3%, a difference of 4.2%).
Choctaw vs Chinese Labor Participation
Labor Participation MetricChoctawChinese
In Labor Force | Age > 16
Tragic
61.5%
Tragic
64.7%
In Labor Force | Age 20-64
Tragic
75.4%
Exceptional
80.7%
In Labor Force | Age 16-19
Exceptional
38.0%
Exceptional
38.6%
In Labor Force | Age 20-24
Fair
74.7%
Exceptional
77.3%
In Labor Force | Age 25-29
Tragic
81.0%
Poor
84.3%
In Labor Force | Age 30-34
Tragic
81.4%
Excellent
85.0%
In Labor Force | Age 35-44
Tragic
80.5%
Exceptional
85.1%
In Labor Force | Age 45-54
Tragic
78.2%
Exceptional
84.1%

Choctaw vs Chinese Family Structure

When considering family structure, the most significant differences between Choctaw and Chinese communities in the United States are seen in single father households (2.7% compared to 2.0%, a difference of 37.6%), single mother households (7.0% compared to 5.2%, a difference of 36.4%), and divorced or separated (14.1% compared to 11.2%, a difference of 26.3%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of average family size (3.21 compared to 3.34, a difference of 3.9%), family households (64.9% compared to 68.1%, a difference of 5.0%), and currently married (46.3% compared to 49.5%, a difference of 7.0%).
Choctaw vs Chinese Family Structure
Family Structure MetricChoctawChinese
Family Households
Exceptional
64.9%
Exceptional
68.1%
Family Households with Children
Exceptional
28.1%
Tragic
26.0%
Married-couple Households
Fair
46.0%
Exceptional
50.4%
Average Family Size
Fair
3.21
Exceptional
3.34
Single Father Households
Tragic
2.7%
Exceptional
2.0%
Single Mother Households
Tragic
7.0%
Exceptional
5.2%
Currently Married
Fair
46.3%
Exceptional
49.5%
Divorced or Separated
Tragic
14.1%
Exceptional
11.2%
Births to Unmarried Women
Tragic
36.9%
Excellent
30.2%

Choctaw vs Chinese Vehicle Availability

When considering vehicle availability, the most significant differences between Choctaw and Chinese communities in the United States are seen in 4 or more vehicles in household (7.8% compared to 8.8%, a difference of 13.5%), no vehicles in household (7.9% compared to 8.2%, a difference of 4.2%), and 3 or more vehicles in household (23.0% compared to 23.9%, a difference of 3.8%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of 1 or more vehicles in household (92.2% compared to 91.9%, a difference of 0.42%), 2 or more vehicles in household (59.3% compared to 60.1%, a difference of 1.4%), and 3 or more vehicles in household (23.0% compared to 23.9%, a difference of 3.8%).
Choctaw vs Chinese Vehicle Availability
Vehicle Availability MetricChoctawChinese
No Vehicles Available
Exceptional
7.9%
Exceptional
8.2%
1+ Vehicles Available
Exceptional
92.2%
Exceptional
91.9%
2+ Vehicles Available
Exceptional
59.3%
Exceptional
60.1%
3+ Vehicles Available
Exceptional
23.0%
Exceptional
23.9%
4+ Vehicles Available
Exceptional
7.8%
Exceptional
8.8%

Choctaw vs Chinese Education Level

When considering education level, the most significant differences between Choctaw and Chinese communities in the United States are seen in professional degree (3.2% compared to 4.5%, a difference of 38.2%), master's degree (11.0% compared to 14.6%, a difference of 32.1%), and bachelor's degree (29.4% compared to 38.5%, a difference of 30.7%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of nursery school (98.3% compared to 98.6%, a difference of 0.29%), kindergarten (98.3% compared to 98.5%, a difference of 0.29%), and 1st grade (98.2% compared to 98.5%, a difference of 0.29%).
Choctaw vs Chinese Education Level
Education Level MetricChoctawChinese
No Schooling Completed
Exceptional
1.8%
Exceptional
1.5%
Nursery School
Exceptional
98.3%
Exceptional
98.6%
Kindergarten
Exceptional
98.3%
Exceptional
98.5%
1st Grade
Exceptional
98.2%
Exceptional
98.5%
2nd Grade
Exceptional
98.2%
Exceptional
98.5%
3rd Grade
Exceptional
98.1%
Exceptional
98.4%
4th Grade
Exceptional
97.9%
Exceptional
98.3%
5th Grade
Exceptional
97.7%
Exceptional
98.1%
6th Grade
Exceptional
97.5%
Exceptional
97.9%
7th Grade
Exceptional
96.5%
Exceptional
97.1%
8th Grade
Exceptional
96.2%
Exceptional
96.9%
9th Grade
Excellent
95.1%
Exceptional
96.3%
10th Grade
Fair
93.6%
Exceptional
95.5%
11th Grade
Tragic
91.8%
Exceptional
94.6%
12th Grade, No Diploma
Tragic
89.8%
Exceptional
93.6%
High School Diploma
Tragic
87.8%
Exceptional
92.0%
GED/Equivalency
Tragic
83.1%
Exceptional
89.0%
College, Under 1 year
Tragic
59.3%
Exceptional
68.3%
College, 1 year or more
Tragic
52.3%
Exceptional
62.2%
Associate's Degree
Tragic
37.8%
Exceptional
48.5%
Bachelor's Degree
Tragic
29.4%
Good
38.5%
Master's Degree
Tragic
11.0%
Fair
14.6%
Professional Degree
Tragic
3.2%
Average
4.5%
Doctorate Degree
Tragic
1.4%
Fair
1.8%

Choctaw vs Chinese Disability

When considering disability, the most significant differences between Choctaw and Chinese communities in the United States are seen in disability age under 5 (1.9% compared to 1.1%, a difference of 64.2%), vision disability (3.3% compared to 2.0%, a difference of 61.2%), and disability age 35 to 64 (16.4% compared to 10.3%, a difference of 59.4%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of disability age over 75 (52.7% compared to 48.7%, a difference of 8.1%), cognitive disability (18.4% compared to 15.9%, a difference of 15.8%), and self-care disability (3.0% compared to 2.6%, a difference of 17.7%).
Choctaw vs Chinese Disability
Disability MetricChoctawChinese
Disability
Tragic
15.4%
Tragic
12.2%
Males
Tragic
15.4%
Tragic
12.1%
Females
Tragic
15.4%
Fair
12.3%
Age | Under 5 years
Tragic
1.9%
Exceptional
1.1%
Age | 5 to 17 years
Tragic
6.9%
Exceptional
4.7%
Age | 18 to 34 years
Tragic
9.0%
Exceptional
6.3%
Age | 35 to 64 years
Tragic
16.4%
Exceptional
10.3%
Age | 65 to 74 years
Tragic
30.2%
Exceptional
21.7%
Age | Over 75 years
Tragic
52.7%
Tragic
48.7%
Vision
Tragic
3.3%
Exceptional
2.0%
Hearing
Tragic
4.5%
Tragic
3.7%
Cognitive
Tragic
18.4%
Exceptional
15.9%
Ambulatory
Tragic
8.3%
Tragic
6.5%
Self-Care
Tragic
3.0%
Tragic
2.6%